Recently, Hilary Clinton and PJ Crowley gave vehement opposition to Netanyahu when he permitted the building of settlements in Jewish East Jerusalem.
Yet the Israelis are doing the right thing. That is because Israelis own and live on the land and can cultivate it as they see fit. Some would argue that the Palestinians want it back. But mere “wanting” does not constitute a claim or right to the land.
Besides that, Israel won Jerusalem and other areas in honorable combat with the right to self-defense on their side. This means Israel should not relinquish control of it’s land to the Palestinians nor for the Obama administration.
Why does Israeli capture of Jerusalem in a war mean the right to keep such land? Let us look at the basic commonsense facts about warfare.
- Nations that start wars to seize the “victim country’s” land are obtaining land through force and can not claim it as a right. The Palestinians and Egypt both started the war and were attempting to take Israeli land. In fact, that is the goal Palestinian terrorists have been murdering for, many years after the 6 Days War. Palestine, like other nations, has no moral right to start the 6 days war and no right to any land they might have captured had they won.
- If a country like Israel is attacked by Palestinians who start the war and jeopardize Israeli lives, then the besieged nation has a moral right to fight back in its own self-defense. Before the war of 1967, Palestinian terrorists were murdering Israeli civilians. Then the Six Days war was started when Palestinian guerillas attacked Israelis from a place in Syria. Syria took the Palestinian side. When Egypt replaced the UN peacekeepers with it’s military troops to intimidate Israel, they were showing they wanted to fight Israelis. So the Israeli military launched a pre-emptive, self-defense strike against the belligerent Egyptians. That was how the war was fought. But the point is that Palestine and her then allies started the war. That is what justifies the Israeli response as self-defense.
- In the process of fighting a war of self-defense (i.e. a just war), it is a moral right of the defenders to seize the attacker’s land as part of the battle-strategy of winning the war. Gaining control of the enemy’s land enables the self-defending army to gain more power and control over the enemy. That is how military victories are won.
Because Palestine had shown through its actions (as did Egypt and Syria) that it was capable of attacking Israel without just cause, the Israelis can know with certainty that Palestinians can start more wars in the future. Therefore,
4. it is also the right of self-defenders to keep the land they won in combat in order to better preserve their safety from the enemy’s future attacks.
Therefore,
5. as losers, the would-be conquerors (i.e. Palestinians, Egyptians, and Syrians) can not claim any right to the land they lost in battle with their intended victim.
These two “rules of war”--#s 3, 4 and 5—explains why Israel has the right to hold onto land they won through battle.
Having a right to their own land, enables Israelis to build settlements justifiably. Some would say building settlements in Jerusalem will only damage “peace talks” by irritating the Palestinian terrorist regime. However, those who say that overlook the historical evidence showing there can be no peace between Israel and the Hamas terrorists who run Palestine’s government.
Since the 1990 Oslo Peace Accords and the terrorist attacks of 2001, 2006, and 2008, the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah have all violated their treaty agreements while –with help from the UN—pressuring Israel to remain faithful to their treaty obligations. Moreover, these terrorists have used the peace talks as an opportunity to recover from the last war, devise plans for future attacks on Israel, and restocking weaponry. Then, the terrorists attack Israel again. This is the recurring pattern we’ve been seeing over the years.
Now, Hamas terrorists are running Palestine’s government and will use the same time-honored tactic they have used before. That is further supported by Hamas “official” Mahmoud Zahar’s public announcement that Hamas will never recognize Israel as a legitimate state. (As reported by
PressTV.ir). Therefore, peace will not work.
So the smart policy for Israel is to remain firm and never compromise ownership or cultivation of their land to Palestinian angst.
Hilary Clinton and PJ Crowley’s claim that Israel damaged US-Israeli relations is false. Israeli cultivation of Jerusalem does not, in and of itself, jeopardize US-Israeli relations because it does not contradict Americans’ property rights. Consequently, Americans have no objective reason for assuming Israel broke diplomatic ties. Therefore, Hilary’s declaration of “damaged relations” is irrational and arbitrary. That further demonstrates her and Crowley’s unilateral guilt in endangering US-Israeli relations.
The reason for their intentional endangerment of US-Israeli relations is that the Obama administration favors the Palestinians more (a subjective bias, not objective peace-keeping). Consequently, the Obama administration wants to pressure Israeli into benefitting Palestine’s terrorist regime. This is appeasement of terrorists who have no moral right to rule a government.
Appeasing terrorists will only alienate a strong ally in our war against terrorists. As a result, we will stand with fewer allies against the terrorists who want to mass-murder Americans. Hilary’s and Crowley’s hysterical outburst reveals the Obama administration’s attempt to make Israel the “outcast” and make Palestine’s Hamas regime look “innocent”.
Hilary’s and Crowley’s unethical outbursts against Netanyahu are merely pushy manipulation tactics to bring Israelis to a one-sided “peace” settlement. Only the terrorists who run Palestine will benefit from it.
